Posted on 07/04/2005 4:12:15 PM PDT by timsbella
War of the Worlds" conquered the box office as easily as the movie's aliens overpowered Earth, but it did not have enough firepower to overcome Hollywood's prolongued box office slump.
Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise's sci-fi tale took in $77.6 million over the long Fourth of July weekend, lifting its total since debuting Wednesday to $113.3 million, according to studio estimates Monday.
That fell well short of the all-time high held by "Spider-Man 2," whose $180.1 million haul in its first six days led Hollywood to a record Fourth of July weekend last year.
The top 12 movies took in $160.1 million, off 25 percent from that 2004 record weekend.
It was the 19th straight weekend that domestic revenues were down compared with last year's, extending the longest slump since analysts began tracking detailed box-office figures. The worst downturn previously recorded was 17 weekends in 1985.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
Wonder when they will begin to figure it out....
Especially the part these days about re-making re-runs which no one liked in the first place.
No loss here. I don't watch 'Hollyweird'.
(By the way, your tagline is fascinating!!)
"The Spider Strategem" was based on a Borges story no? :-)
Hell, the mid-60s were so bad that even "Major Dundee," Peckinpah's worst film, seemed like the Godfather compared to the tripe that tinseltown was producing.
How I Made a Hundred Movies in Hollywood and Never Lost a Dime by Roger Corman, Jim Jerome
now available in paperback!
Correct, "The Traitor and the Hero" to be precise. Great movie, probably my second favorite Bertolucci film (there were only three that I liked).
That used to be the case. Now they probably do as much damage to film lovers as anyone. Buying foriegn films and sitting on them to eventaully release them in mangled form. Shameless Oscar campaigns...
FWIW REALmagic threw in a complimentary copy of The Little Shop of Horrors with their DVD playback card years ago.
War of the Worlds was a big budget death march.
Excellent metaphor. LOL. Sounds as good, or better, than anything that big name critics offer up.
"The rise of the re-makes is in direct proportion to the rise of budgets. Whenever big money gets involved there soon follows people who try to quantify the process with "rules" and "formulas" for success."
Sounds plausible. The talentless excluding the talented for financial reasons vice political.
However, it seems that really talented writers could do something even with a remake, and that brings me back to the talented being excluded for political reasons.
That's how they started -- by buying North American rights to The Secret Policeman's Other Ball (?) and releasing it in the U.S. The Weinsteins got ground under by Disney.
They say most good writers are drifting to Cable now.
Having known many people in Hollywood, the idea of its being a leftist haven is far overstated. The most visible elements are liberal -- creative personalities tend to be liberal as a general rule -- while the real powers that be in Hollywood remain conservative. This really isn't a point I can argue effectively, you're just going to have to take my word for it.
That's my point entirely, Clemenza.
I'm sure that Hollywood would jump at the opportunity to hand a Young Turk a boatload of $$$to make a film that makes bundles of $$$.
Unfortunately, that film would be torn to pieces by lawyers representing GLAAD, NOW, NAACP and who knows who else.
Against that Ominous Spectre of lawsuits, miles of film on the floor and re-shooting. The Far Left Coast has opted for revolting, re-made, recycled, inofensive pap.
Give it a couple of more months, and the Indies might just move in and take over.
Or Hollywood could just kill all the lawyers!
Jack.
Just took my Borges off the shelf. (A very Borgesian statement coming from someone with my screen name!) they call it 'The Theme of the Traitor and the Hero'. I'll have to read it again since I don't recall it. Only 4 pages.
Hey Hollywood! We don't like you. When are you going to figure that out?
The problem is self fullfiling. Not enough conservative people go to film school. They tend to get into the business end of the business if at all. I don't buy the conservative blacklist idea either. You can make a movie on a credit card these days. You just have to hustle.
Television started eating the film industry's lunch during the 1960s. IIRC, in his (auto?)biography Skywalking Lucas says that the 1960s film slump offered a golden opportunity for newcomers like him to break into the film industry.
Conservative people tend to be very down to earth and pragmatic. What sensible person in their right mind would take a career risk like the ones taken by actors, writers or directors?
Now everyone is going to poo-poo that statement. So, here's the challenge to anyone on this thread: sell your house, pocket the money, move to L.A. into a studio apartment and take acting lessons. Take any job you can find even vaguely related to show business and spend the next five years of your life doing that -- no health insurance, no benefits, no assurances that you will progress in your career in an orderly manner.
Is anybody willing to take that bet?
For acting you have to do that yes. Directors generally have a leg up with formal training. You can really go out and make movie on your own these days. If its really good some festival will play it.
Now available in paperback!
I'll have to look that one up, durasell!
Corman has always been a fascinating character to me. He was featured in IFC's "Decade Under The Influence". A three part, three hour documentary about films of the 70s. With great interviews by the people on both sides of the camera and much insight into where today's Hollywood has it all wrong.
I'd love to see IFC make a three part, three hour documentary focusing on Roger Corman alone.
That would be great cinema!
Jack.
Want to know how directors make it -- after all that formal training? Like this: go to hollwood and become a p.a. (production assistant), which means fetching coffee and running personal errands. Work your way up to assistant director and talk some independent record label into letting you direct a music video. From there you can direct some commercials and then get an agent who will put you up for a low budget movie.
The indie movies are strictly for rich kids who can raise the million dollars from friends and family. When they say a movie was shot for $100,000 -- they don't count in post production etc. that can boost the price enormously. And only one out of a hundred of those films are good enough for Sundance, etc.
Look, Hollywood is a high risk, long odds profession. Those who take the risk and who have the talent are the ones who win at it. There are no assurances and if you lose, then you get to spend the rest of your life driving a limo or selling office products over the phone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.